530 Chain conversion

[Guest]

I want to convert my `79 GS1000E from the 630 chain to a 530 chain and sprocket. I want to keep it as close to stock gearing as possible. Z1 suggest an 18 T FS and a 50T rear with a 116 link chain. A seller on Ebay has a 15T FS and a 43T rear with a 106 link chain. Which one should I use? What are the performance differences when using either set up? link for the ebay kit http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220633981246&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

 

[Billy Ricks]

The first combo will give you a 2.77 final ratio, the second will give you a ratio of 2.86. The second will give you a little better acceleration off the line but will turn more revs at highway speeds. The first will lower your rpm at highway speeds. Which one you pick depends on where you do the most riding. The 18 tooth front of the first kit will give the chain an easier path around the front sprocket.

 

[Guest]

Thank You Billy Ricks!

 

[Nessism]

I wouldn't run a 15 tooth front, too small. I'd get at least a 17 in front and pick the rear as you like. The stock ratio was 2.8 so do a quick calculation and pick the tooth count that serves your needs. When buying the parts don't forget to get a front sprocket spacer - after market sprockets are narrower than the OE sprockets Suzuki used. Z1 sells these.

 

[Guest]

Go with what Z1 says. The owner is a member here and he runs an excellent company. And he knows what he sells.

 

[gearhead13]

++11 on Z1.
NEVER had better and more consistent, fast service from another supplier.

 

[Texas Don]

No disagreement with any of the sentiments above, but why change from the 630 chain size to begin with? Sprockets and chains are readily available in 630 size so what's the advantage?

 

[Nessism]

No disagreement with any of the sentiments above, but why change from the 630 chain size to begin with? Sprockets and chains are readily available in 630 size so what's the advantage?

Lower cost, lighter weight. My question is why keep 630 when that size is all but obsolete these days.

 

[Texas Don]

Lower cost, lighter weight. My question is why keep 630 when that size is all but obsolete these days.

Ed,
My bike is all but obsolete these days. The minor differences in cost isn't much of an issue but I'm not advocating keeping the 630 chain. I'm just wondering why it should be changed?

 

[tkent02]

I wouldn't change it if it didn't need a new chain. But if it does, get the new 530 stuff.

 

[Baatfam]

Ed,
My bike is all but obsolete these days. The minor differences in cost isn't much of an issue but I'm not advocating keeping the 630 chain. I'm just wondering why it should be changed?

Well...if you are changing it anyway...(and regular maintenance requires this), why not spend less and get more?

 

[81ZUKI75]

530 v 630

530 v 630

Lower cost, lighter weight. My question is why keep 630 when that size is all but obsolete these days.

I have two 16V 750s and both came with 630 chains. I converted the T to a 530 during its "restification" (recue/modification). Could be my imagination I guess, but it seems to run much smoother and quieter than the E model even though its has an NEP nylon sprocket.

Oh, and I got every thing I needed from Z1:clap:.

 

[Nessism]

Could be my imagination I guess, but it seems to run much smoother and quieter than the E model even though its has an NEP nylon sprocket.

I believe it. 530 has more links for a given length, less distance between pins, so it will curve around the sprockets easier, and smooth out power delivery. Another advantage to 530.

 

[Billy Ricks]

I have two 16V 750s and both came with 630 chains. I converted the T to a 530 during its "restification" (recue/modification). Could be my imagination I guess, but it seems to run much smoother and quieter than the E model even though its has an NEP nylon sprocket.

Oh, and I got every thing I needed from Z1:clap:.

It's not your imagination. Less mass and less friction with the 530. Many go a step further and do a 520 conversion.

 

[Texas Don]

Chains are a little confusing for me. I'm reading on various places on the net that non O-ring chain is actually better than O-ring chain. Now I'm reading that 530 is better than 630 with some reasons stated. One thing that I'm sure of is that an OEM style 630 chain has a higher tensile strength than an OEM 530 chain. Since the pins are farther apart on a 630 chain, the sprocket teeth are cut slightly deeper which makes them stronger as well. So far what I'm getting is that the logic behind changing from a 630 to a 530 is 1. lighter 2. less costly 3. smoother running. In return I get less strength in the chain and sprockets on a like-for-like comparison. I'm thinking that's a bad trade off. Or am I missing something here?

 

[Baatfam]

Chains are a little confusing for me. I'm reading on various places on the net that non O-ring chain is actually better than O-ring chain. Now I'm reading that 530 is better than 630 with some reasons stated. One thing that I'm sure of is that an OEM style 630 chain has a higher tensile strength than an OEM 530 chain. Since the pins are farther apart on a 630 chain, the sprocket teeth are cut slightly deeper which makes them stronger as well. So far what I'm getting is that the logic behind changing from a 630 to a 530 is 1. lighter 2. less costly 3. smoother running. In return I get less strength in the chain and sprockets on a like-for-like comparison. I'm thinking that's a bad trade off. Or am I missing something here?

TD...technology has advanced during the past 25-30 years and the 530 is plenty strong enough for these old bikes...in fact, you'll find them on modern bikes with far more power....

 

[Billy Ricks]

They are running 520 and 525 chain on modern sportbikes with 2-3 times the power of these old bikes with no problems. I'm running a 520 rather than the stock 530. I've got Vortex sprockets and a Regina chain. It's been the smoothest and best wearing combo I've ever used.

 

[tkent02]

Chains are a little confusing for me. I'm reading on various places on the net that non O-ring chain is actually better than O-ring chain. Now I'm reading that 530 is better than 630 with some reasons stated. One thing that I'm sure of is that an OEM style 630 chain has a higher tensile strength than an OEM 530 chain. Since the pins are farther apart on a 630 chain, the sprocket teeth are cut slightly deeper which makes them stronger as well. So far what I'm getting is that the logic behind changing from a 630 to a 530 is 1. lighter 2. less costly 3. smoother running. In return I get less strength in the chain and sprockets on a like-for-like comparison. I'm thinking that's a bad trade off. Or am I missing something here?

No, 530 chains today are much stronger than 630 chains of thirty years ago, strong enough for the biggest, heaviest and torquiest of modern bikes. 630 chains for motorcycles have not been improved much since the eighties as nobody buys them anymore. So to buy a 630 is to pay a lot extra for a heavier, crappier, obsolete product, much like buying a Harley Davidson.

Non O ring chains may be better for those racers who clean and lube correctly after every race, for the rest of us modern O rings and X rings which last thirty thousand miles with near zero maintenance are plenty good enough.

 

[Texas Don]

Thanks for the input to all of you. I'm feeling a lot better educated about chains. This forum really rocks.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the input to all of you. I'm feeling a lot better educated about chains. This forum really rocks.

Here is some info., re. the actual rotational weight difference.
http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/showpost.php?p=966136&postcount=1